 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 Re: Actually, Dave... |
Nature Boy Florida |
| Mark Ledbetter wrote: | Why was Ray Hughes (s)elected to serve as GO and later appointed President of Lee when it was obvious his "giftedness" was pulpit ministry rather than administrative?
|
Do you have any numbers to support your premise that Ray Hughes was not gifted enough to lead the COG? or that being able to preach excludes you from effectiveness as the General Overseer?
(I would make the same case for Lee - but Paul Conn kind of eliminated that argument. I pity the fool that tries to follow him.)
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today! |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16646
10/2/15 11:57 am
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| Re: NTB |
Mark Ledbetter |
| Nature Boy Florida wrote: | | Mark Ledbetter wrote: | Why was Ray Hughes (s)elected to serve as GO and later appointed President of Lee when it was obvious his "giftedness" was pulpit ministry rather than administrative?
|
Do you have any numbers to support your premise that Ray Hughes was not gifted enough to lead the COG? or that being able to preach excludes you from effectiveness as the General Overseer?
(I would make the same case for Lee - but Paul Conn kind of eliminated that argument. I pity the fool that tries to follow him.) |
numbers? here's two and one.
It isn't about whether is was or wasn't gifted enough to lead the COG. Did an admirable job I suppose. But his greater "gifting" was in the pulpit. Had we gotten behind him he'd surpassed Jimmy Swag or any other. But know, we had to take him out of the field and put him behind a desk.
_________________
God-Honoring
Christ-Centered
Bible-Based
Spirit-Led
(This is how I want to be) |
Golf Cart Mafia Associate
Posts: 2109
10/2/15 3:14 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
wayne |
| Travis Johnson wrote: | | BromptonFalls wrote: | Very interesting discussion Travis.
There are obviously some fantastic leaders serving on various state councils and serving as district overseers that have great administrative abilities. As homeboys they know the personalities of certain regions as well as proclivities of certain pastors (that might take an out of state overseer a few years to really grasp).
I would love to hear the pros and cons of in-state overseer elections discussed in Nashville. But in the meantime, I'd like to ask you for some clarification regarding the 1st solution you mentioned.
| Quote: | SOLUTION
1. Lift tenure. Doing this will slow down the leadership rotation (even if ABs are not elected) and give states a shot at having a consistent longer term leader.
|
When you refer to lifting tenure: Do you mean lifting the 8 year tenure limit per assigned state or lifting the 12 year total (or both?) |
I would lift tenure, period. If someone is effective, let them lead for as long as they're effective. If they're no longer effective, the state council or state ministers can express the need for a change via preference ballot (or a real ballot).
As it is, the overseer and state council are required to cooperate on much of the business of a state. |
IMO this system will have difficulty working effectively. I think in all elections, people become a little lazy in truly picking the right candidate. They see a name they are somewhat familiar with and then select it. Mcconnel/Boehner/Clinton/Bush - without looking into their record most people select these names. In Church politics I have found that some pastors/members are unwilling to confront issues and have the tendency to "just let God handle it." Especially, if it's someone they know. Both of these systems have the tendency to perpetuate a/the problems for years and years.
In regards to Ray Hughes being a good/bad GO. I was at the assembly in Indianapolis when the White issues was going on. I believe Bro Hughes was a phenomenal preacher and truly consider him as one of my favorites but he was the right man at the right time for that job. As a member who was watching the sessions I was amazed at the authority/respect he commanded and when Bro White and his entourage came into the meeting in a disruptive fashion - Bro Hughes took control and brought the meeting back to order and all those preachers in that room came under his authority.
It was very impressive to this at the time young kid. |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1274
10/6/15 8:24 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Oh no! |
spartanfan |
I don't think so! In talking with my Assembly of God friends - it is a political mess. The ones who have had a District Superintendent who was very popular with the good old boys because he catered to them for a long time but in reality was not focused upon the harvest and didn't really help develop his pastors into greater leaders - and then got "stuck" with him for many years would advocate against it. And if you "crossed" him and he held a grudge against you it could make life miserable - for decades.
Look at it this way - your next overseer would probably be the first man elected to your state council. Then his job would be secured as he built up support from the ministers - sometimes by "giving" them things (appointments, finances, perks, etc.) and that would last until he made unpopular decisions (even if they were the best decisions) and then the leader of the opposition against him (it would certainly eventually develop) or the next "1st man on" would be elevated and he would go back into a good church. That is more political than anything we've ever come up with.
I am against it simply because voting and limited tenure are not Biblical - even though it sometimes is best practically.
I have enjoyed my 17 state overseers I've served under in the ministry. I've had one or two (a long time ago) that I was secretly kind of happy their tenure expired but 15 out of 17 is a pretty good record. I would love to have had a few of them for a very long time - but not as much as I would have hated to have had a couple of them for a very long time.
If you elect state overseers - somebody would eventually get stuck with me (for a 2 year term because I would be a lousy politician and would be voted out quickly) and I don't wish that on anyone  |
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3638
10/6/15 8:49 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| The problems feel very regional.... |
Clint Wills |
My guess is that many of the problems discussed here are somewhat regional. Unfortunately they are probably regional in the largest region of the COG. I'd imagine that mission states and smaller regions don't deal with cliques or politics as much....but the 80+ churches in the PNW is a drop in the bucket to the 280 churches in north Georgia.
In Oregon our district is very spread out. We have a church 30 minutes from us, one 2 hours away, and another 3 hours away....doesn't lend itself to cliques a whole lot. There are definitely areas where they are closer geographically, but not a whole lot.
What would likely end up happening here is the pastors with licensed staff would get elected because their staff would vote for them. In reality I don't think that's the worst thing ever. I think there are 5 churches in the region with more than one full time pastor. So electing the lead pastor from one of those churches means you are electing a guy who 1) has lead a staff and a church large enough to afford multiple staff members and 2) has developed new ministers (because the reality is that they are mostly home-grown men and women serving in the specific churches I can think of).
Another funny reality is that the pastors that I would think could do a good job at it (and have the supporting votes) probably don't want to do it....which eliminates some of the political posturing.
Also....as far as it being the first person elected to the council, that's a little different in a state than a region - if I were to guess. In our 3 state region we are required to have one minister from each state. One of our states only has a few eligible men...and it generally means it's the same guy as often as he is eligible. So that guy usually goes on first - maybe second - because he's on almost everyone's ballot. In a situation where you are electing one that dynamic changes.
I will say that I don't think it's a good idea for the state council to have the vote since most of those men will be nominees. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5161
10/6/15 9:15 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Oh no! |
Travis Johnson |
Spartanfan,
These are good thoughts.
A lot of people think the AG is doing well. Of course, I'm a COG guy and glad to be...but, I sure do love how effective the COG is in USA Church Planting and how the AG has cranked out some great ministry with a seemingly higher potential lid for local churches. I don't ascribe it only to their form of government. But, systems do matter.
| spartanfan wrote: | | Look at it this way - your next overseer would probably be the first man elected to your state council. |
In FL, the 1st man elected is Dwight Allen. If there was a vacancy in the state office and if he was available, he would very likely be our AB.
Why?
-30 years in one place
-Building a culturally diverse local church from a challenging situation to about 1,400 people or so on Sundays
-Leading a church to become a Mission's sending force of nature and
-personally and repetitiously investing in other local ministers for decades...truly creating sons and daughters in the Lord
It would be a beautiful thing in my mind for someone who knows the challenges, culture, and people...and who also has the administrative depth to step into that role.
| Quote: | | Then his job would be secured as he built up support from the ministers - sometimes by "giving" them things (appointments, finances, perks, etc.) and that would last until he made unpopular decisions (even if they were the best decisions) and then the leader of the opposition against him (it would certainly eventually develop) or the next "1st man on" would be elevated and he would go back into a good church. That is more political than anything we've ever come up with. |
We largely do not give appointments without local church input anymore. We do have overseers that gatekeep and will not present a full compliment of options to churches or who will railroad a process. But, that's happening now. The more sensitive and accountable an overseer is to the people he is leading, the less likely that will be to happen. Still, there would be jockeying...no doubt...as there is now. The targets of said behavior would change. And, our nepotism and patronage opportunities would change...and actually be lessened since appointments at the state office require state council approval. We'd actually cut off one complete layer of patronage.
| Quote: | | I am against it simply because voting and limited tenure are not Biblical - even though it sometimes is best practically. |
I think limited tenures hurt us as well...couldn't agree with you more. Of course, a mechanism to remove an ineffective leader would need to be in place based on a vote. |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 7821
10/6/15 10:34 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
diakoneo |
What is wrong with a thorough evaluation, regardless of which method we use?
Is it impractical?
Are we afraid we are going to hurt someones feelings?
Perhaps it is because we don't have a universal description of what we should expect of an AB...??? |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3382
10/6/15 11:35 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Oh no! |
spartanfan |
| Travis Johnson wrote: | Spartanfan,
These are good thoughts.
A lot of people think the AG is doing well. Of course, I'm a COG guy and glad to be...but, I sure do love how effective the COG is in USA Church Planting and how the AG has cranked out some great ministry with a seemingly higher potential lid for local churches. I don't ascribe it only to their form of government. But, systems do matter.
| spartanfan wrote: | | Look at it this way - your next overseer would probably be the first man elected to your state council. |
In FL, the 1st man elected is Dwight Allen. If there was a vacancy in the state office and if he was available, he would very likely be our AB.
Why?
-30 years in one place
-Building a culturally diverse local church from a challenging situation to about 1,400 people or so on Sundays
-Leading a church to become a Mission's sending force of nature and
-personally and repetitiously investing in other local ministers for decades...truly creating sons and daughters in the Lord
It would be a beautiful thing in my mind for someone who knows the challenges, culture, and people...and who also has the administrative depth to step into that role.
| Quote: | | Then his job would be secured as he built up support from the ministers - sometimes by "giving" them things (appointments, finances, perks, etc.) and that would last until he made unpopular decisions (even if they were the best decisions) and then the leader of the opposition against him (it would certainly eventually develop) or the next "1st man on" would be elevated and he would go back into a good church. That is more political than anything we've ever come up with. |
We largely do not give appointments without local church input anymore. We do have overseers that gatekeep and will not present a full compliment of options to churches or who will railroad a process. But, that's happening now. The more sensitive and accountable an overseer is to the people he is leading, the less likely that will be to happen. Still, there would be jockeying...no doubt...as there is now. The targets of said behavior would change. And, our nepotism and patronage opportunities would change...and actually be lessened since appointments at the state office require state council approval. We'd actually cut off one complete layer of patronage.
| Quote: | | I am against it simply because voting and limited tenure are not Biblical - even though it sometimes is best practically. |
I think limited tenures hurt us as well...couldn't agree with you more. Of course, a mechanism to remove an ineffective leader would need to be in place based on a vote. |
That's the problem. You think about someone like Dwight Allen who we all love and appreciate. But what if that were someone like, say Tom or me? Then you wouldn't be so favorable toward it |
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3638
10/6/15 1:03 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Oh no! |
Nature Boy Florida |
| spartanfan wrote: | | Travis Johnson wrote: | Spartanfan,
These are good thoughts.
A lot of people think the AG is doing well. Of course, I'm a COG guy and glad to be...but, I sure do love how effective the COG is in USA Church Planting and how the AG has cranked out some great ministry with a seemingly higher potential lid for local churches. I don't ascribe it only to their form of government. But, systems do matter.
| spartanfan wrote: | | Look at it this way - your next overseer would probably be the first man elected to your state council. |
In FL, the 1st man elected is Dwight Allen. If there was a vacancy in the state office and if he was available, he would very likely be our AB.
Why?
-30 years in one place
-Building a culturally diverse local church from a challenging situation to about 1,400 people or so on Sundays
-Leading a church to become a Mission's sending force of nature and
-personally and repetitiously investing in other local ministers for decades...truly creating sons and daughters in the Lord
It would be a beautiful thing in my mind for someone who knows the challenges, culture, and people...and who also has the administrative depth to step into that role.
| Quote: | | Then his job would be secured as he built up support from the ministers - sometimes by "giving" them things (appointments, finances, perks, etc.) and that would last until he made unpopular decisions (even if they were the best decisions) and then the leader of the opposition against him (it would certainly eventually develop) or the next "1st man on" would be elevated and he would go back into a good church. That is more political than anything we've ever come up with. |
We largely do not give appointments without local church input anymore. We do have overseers that gatekeep and will not present a full compliment of options to churches or who will railroad a process. But, that's happening now. The more sensitive and accountable an overseer is to the people he is leading, the less likely that will be to happen. Still, there would be jockeying...no doubt...as there is now. The targets of said behavior would change. And, our nepotism and patronage opportunities would change...and actually be lessened since appointments at the state office require state council approval. We'd actually cut off one complete layer of patronage.
| Quote: | | I am against it simply because voting and limited tenure are not Biblical - even though it sometimes is best practically. |
I think limited tenures hurt us as well...couldn't agree with you more. Of course, a mechanism to remove an ineffective leader would need to be in place based on a vote. |
That's the problem. You think about someone like Dwight Allen who we all love and appreciate. But what if that were someone like, say Tom or me? Then you wouldn't be so favorable toward it |
I would think you would be ok Sparty.
_________________
Whether you like it or not, learn to love it, because its the best thing going today! |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16646
10/6/15 5:06 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
diakoneo |
| diakoneo wrote: | What is wrong with a thorough evaluation, regardless of which method we use?
Is it impractical?
Are we afraid we are going to hurt someones feelings?
Perhaps it is because we don't have a universal description of what we should expect of an AB...??? |
Perhaps we should set it up where the AB position is like a CEO. With the State Council being somewhat like a Board of Directors and pastors as shareholders. That being said a thorough evaluation of the CEO should part of the process. |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3382
10/7/15 8:59 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Oh no! |
deltaman |
[quote="spartanfan"] | Travis Johnson wrote: | Spartanfan,
That's the problem. You think about someone like Dwight Allen who we all love and appreciate. But what if that were someone like, say Tom or me? Then you wouldn't be so favorable toward it |
I don't see that as a problem. Number one, you (spartanfan) probably would not be elected...
Number two: Tom might be elected..... . But could be voted out in next election or may alter his leadership style after a couple of years in office
Number three: at least it would be local state politics and good ole boy politics and not Cleveland 'good ole' boys and Cleveland politics.
Number four: nothing wrong in allowing the change to include limited time in office. Perhaps elected every 4 years with a 12 year term of service. That is one decade plus 2 years. Almost one generation.. Perhaps that would satisfy some who think long term office holders are bad and don't believe that God can intervene and place men where He wants them and remove men when He chooses.
Surely it cannot be any worse than what we have now...... |
Member
Posts: 40
10/8/15 8:12 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| DS |
Could It Be True |
| Dean Steenburgh wrote: | | if they don't work out we reserve the right to vote them out. |
That can happen now under the current system.
_________________
Scars are tattoos with better stories. |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 717
10/11/15 9:48 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: DS |
Clint Wills |
| Could It Be True wrote: | | Dean Steenburgh wrote: | | if they don't work out we reserve the right to vote them out. |
That can happen now under the current system. |
I don't think that it can. We send in a "preference" vote. That tells them about our preferences...they are not obligated to act according to our preference. Not to mention, has anyone ever heard of an AB getting less than 90% approval? Also...if our AB does "too well", then they are moved on to a better state - for us small states at least.
With our current system all the ballots still run through Cleveland. If states were doing the voting, then the ballots would remain in the state and be counted like we currently count state council ballots. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5161
10/13/15 8:54 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
FellowSoldier |
Travis, I love the idea and think it would make a huge difference in the areas you mention and more. But for this to happen, it would have to get on the GC agenda, and I see that as a long shot. Every time something like that comes up, it is a long drawn out process at best.
_________________
Your Fellow Soldier |
Friendly Face
Posts: 403
10/18/15 11:27 am
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
